You might have heard about the relatively-new Botox-alternative called Dysport and wondered, “Botox versus Dysport: what’s the difference?” I recently visited cosmetic dermatologist Dr. Edgar Fincher in Beverly Hills to check it out and pepper him with questions, which he patiently answered.
Dysport, like Botox, is a botulinum toxin designed to weaken the dynamic muscles that overly pull on thinning skin (and can also be used to reduce sweating). It’s been used in Europe for years under the name Reloxin, and is made by the company Medicis, whereas Allergan makes Botox (as well as Juvederm, Latisse, Clinique Medical, the Lap Band…). There are at least 2 other Botox/Dysport alternatives currently being tested by the FDA, which is a great thing for consumers, because more competition equals lower prices!
The general consensus, Dr. Fincher informed me, is that there’s not a huge difference between Botox and Dysport. Dysport tends to produce visible results more quickly…but only by a day or two. Meanwhile, Dysport also seems to last longer…but only by a month or so. (Still, every little bit helps!) Some doctors believe that Botox is better for the Elevens, while Dysport is better for crow’s feet. And while Botox and Dysport use different types of unit measurements, even the price basically stacks up as equal. The comparison that comes up repeatedly is Coke versus Pepsi: they’re essentially the same thing, just with a different flavor–it simply depends which you prefer yourself.
I’ve had my Dysport injections for about 3 months now and have seen little-to-no difference from my last Botox injections. Dr. Fincher did a wonderful, subtle job, so my frown lines are mostly gone, but I still have plenty of mobility and look natural. I’d definitely get Dysport again, but will probably toggle back and forth between it and Botox a few more times to see if, eventually, I notice a difference.
Here’s a video of me from last year, meanwhile, getting my Botox injections!